[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
q1 REPORT BY THE Co roller General cOASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER OF THE UNITED STATES How Should Alaska's Federal Recreational Lands Be Developed? Views Of Alaska Residents And Visitors Millions of acres of Federal land in Alaska have been set aside for recreation, and the Congress is considering legislation to estab- lish new national parks, preserves, wildlife refuges, and forests. What kind of recreational facilities should be developed? Where? GAO surveyed Alaska visitors and residents and presents their views in this report to help guide the Con- gress and the agencies which manage Alas- C ka's Federal lands. As tourism grows, additional pressure wil'I be placed on already crowded recreational areas. Federal agencies should keep new re- creational facilities at a minimum in estab- lished areas, concentrating instead on devel- oping lightly used areas. Cj 0 HD C 243 A4 FHD - 243 A4 U55 7 04; 191 79 CED-79-116 IU SEPTEMBER 27,1979 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. 20348 Property of CSC Library B-125035 COASTAL ZONE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER INFORMATION CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Chairman, Senate Committee. on Energy and Natural Resources Chairman House Committee on Interior and. Insular Affairs This report presents our analysis of the views of a representative number of visitors to Federal recreation areas in Alaska, in order that their opinions be considered in plans being made for recreation on Alaska's Federal lands. Copies of the report are being sent to the Director, office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the Interior. Comptroller General of the United States CZIC COLLECTION COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S HOW SHOULD A`LASKA'S REPORT TO THE CHAIRMEN FEDERAL RECREATIONAL SENATE COMMITTEE ON LANDS BE DEVELOPED? ENERGY AND NATURAL VIEWS OF ALASKA RESIDENTS RESOURCES AND THE AND VISITORS HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS D I G E -ST How should millions of acres of Federal land in Alaska, set aside for recreation, be developed? As tourism grows in Alaska, Federal and State agencies must decide how to meet the increasing demand for recreation facilities, while preserving. Alaska's landscape and natural resources. Policies and programs adopted by Federal land-managing agencies--Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; and Agriculture's Forest Service--will determine the type and quality of recrea- tional facilities available in Alaska. To help the agencies make these decisions, GAO mailed a questionnaire to 1,291 recent visitors to and residents of Alaska. The poll asked them about --their experiences in nine of Alaska s long-established Federal parks, wild- life refuges, forests, and public lands; --the typest, location, and amount of recreational development they would like.to see on Alaska's Federal lands-- both in established areas and in new national monuments; and --their familiarity with recreational information published by Federal agen- cies and the usefulness of this in- formation. Responses were received from 1,081, or 84 percent, of those'polled . -GAO re- ceived 802 replies from Alaskan visitors and 279 from residents. The responses are representative of about 100,000 Tear Shee . Upon removal, the report CED-79-116 cover date should be noted hereon. Alaskan visitors and residents. The high return rate, as well as@the extent of the written comments, indicates the high degree of inperest in Alaska's recreational faciJities.. Development of recreational facilities Visitors to established Federa 1 recrea- tional areas, such as Mt. McKinley Na- tional.Park, we're satisfied with their experiences. Support for further development of roads, cabins, and lodges in the nine-established areas ranged from 4 to 49 percent. In contrast, 'sup- port for development of the same facili- ties in Alaska's new national monuments and future national parks, preserves, wildlife refuq e,s, and forests, ranged from 75 to 91 percent. As tourism grows, additional pressure will be placed on already crowded recreational areas. Respondents to GAO's survey clearly favor Federal land- managing agencies developing lightly used areas. Agency officials agree with this approach. Paying for future recreational facilities The majority of those responding favored either a user-charge system (37 percent) or Federal funding (36 percent) to pay for future recreational development. Currently, user charges are not used widely in Alaska. Expanding the user- fee system in existing recreational areas could help finance facilities to meet future recreational needs. The user-fee system would shift some of the costs from the taxpayer to the user. However, user fees may not be advisable for all recreation units, since the increased administrative costs may ex- ceed the additional revenues. Tourist information Although Federal agencies,in Alaska publish a great deal of recreational information, up to 72 percent of the visitors responding to GAO's question- naire-said they were not aware of the, publications., Had they known, they would have used such informa-tion to plan their vacations. Interagency Federal visitor information centers would make recreation informa- tion more readily available, as well as direct visitors to lesser known and less crowded areas. The Heritage Con- servation and Recreation Service could coordinate the development of such c en-. ters with the Federal land-managing- agencies.' This agency is res@6nslble for,coordinating recreation for Federal, State, and-private lands. Agency officials were given an opportunity to comment on this report. They generally agreed with the report findings, and their views are included in the report where appropriate. C o n t e rr t s Page DIGEST 1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1 Review scope and design 1 Representativeness of sample 2 The agencies 3 2 VISITOR'S EXPERIENCES AND OPINIONS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 6 visitor satisfaction and recreational development established areas 6 Recreational development - new areas 10 Financing recreational develop- ment 11 Public awareness of recreational opportunities on Federal land 13 Conclusions 15 Agency comments 16 APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF RESPONSES BY AGENCY AND RECREATION AREA 17 National Park Service 17 Mt. McKinley National Park is Katmai National Monument 21 Glacier Bay National Monument 22 Forest Service 25 Tongass National Forest 25 Chugach National Forest 26 Fish and Wildlife Service 29 Kenai National Moose Range 29 Arctic National Wildlife Range 31 Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 32 Bureau of Land Management 35 Denali Highway Area 35 II REVIEW DESIGN AND STRUCTURE 38 Sample selection 38 Weighting of percentages 39 Classifications of groups 42 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE WITH TABULATED RESULTS 44 ABBREVIATIONS BLM Bureau of Land Management FWS Fish and Wildlife Service GAO General.Ac.counting'-Qffic'e HCRS Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service NPS 'National Park Service CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Federai.lands in Alaska attract tourists from the rest of the United States and from abroad. About 74 percent of the National Park System lands and 73 percent of Fish and Wildlife,Service (FWS) lands are in Alaska. The Federal lands are pressured by increasing numbers of recreational / users. National park visitation in Alaska increased from/ about 138,000 visits in 1971 to about 7251000 visits in 1977, a 427-percent increase. The nationwide increase during those years was 31'percent. Alaska's Federal domain has unique recreational and economic characteristics. The status of much of this land, including the activities that will be permitted, is being de- bated by the Congress. Pending legislative Proposals would establish new national parks, preserves, wildlife refuges, and forests. In addition, new national monuments totaling, approximately 56 million acres were established by Presiden- tial proclamation in December 1978. l/ Federal agencies ex- pect the naming of the new areas to Turther accelerate tourism. Thus, Federal lands are in a state of critical transi-.; tion-. The Congress and Federal agencies are making deci- sions which will determine the type and quality of recreation available. The agencies will be deciding how best to lobate,' fund, and publicize recreational facilities. REVIEW SCOPE AND DESIGN The purpose of this review was to obtain the views-of a representative number of visitors to Alaska's Federal recrea- tional lands to determine: satisfaction with current recrea- tional management; preferred location type, and amount of recreational development; and familiarity with and utility of recreational information published by Federal agencies. This information would be used to provide direction to. National Park Service (NPS),' FWS, and other agencies in the .management of existing agency lands, and in plans for new areas in Alaska. To accomplish this, questionnaires were@mailed l/The lands are referred to as "new areas" in this report. For contrast, the term "established areas" refers to Alaska's national parks, monuments, forests, and wild- life refuges which were established before December 1978. to lj291 people, representative of a total population of about 100,000, who,were either living in Alaska l/ or had visited the State -2/ in 1977 or 1978.. Additionally, officials were interviewed at each of the Federal land-managing agencies in Alaska to determine prob- lems encountered in providing recreation and recommended so- lutions for those problems. Recreational budgets, staffing, and future plans were also ascertained. The sample was selected in cooperation with several State, Federal, and pr.ivate organizations. The question- naire was, mailed to persons selectedrandomly from several sources. These included persons listed in the telephone directories of seven Alaskan cities an.d.listings of people who registered --at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce visitor's. center, --on the Alaska Marine Highway System, --at concessionaire facilities in Mt. McKinley National Park or Katmai National Monument, or --for cabins in the-Chugach National Forest. Responses were received from 1,081 of the 1,291 people selected from these populations. Usable responses totaled 1,046. Of the respondents, 55 and 45 percent were non- Alaskans and Alaskans, respectively. The respondents were mostly male, 40 years or older, with earnings below $30,000. Alaskan respondents were generally younger and earned more money than non-Alaskans. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SAMPLE The socioeconomic characteristics of the individuals in the review sample compare closely to the same characteristics of Alaskan residents in the U.S. Census Bureau data and to characteristics of visitors to Alaska in an extensive tourism study concluded recently by the State. Because of this, and 1/"Alaskans" as used in this report refers to residents who. lived in the State in 1977 or 1978. 2/"Non-Alaskans" as used in this report refers to the re- spondents who visited the State in 1977 or 1978. 2 because the respondents substantially agreed on the ques- tions asked, we believe'that the results reasonably reflect the views.of the universe of users of Alaska's Federal rec- reational facilities. However, the results may not represent the opinions of all residents of Alaska or all non-residents. THE AGENCIES Alaska's Federal land-managang agencies are responsible for the management of over 200 million of Alaska's 375 mil- lion acres. NPS administers 18 units totaling approximately 48 million acres in Alaska. The bulk,13 national monuments totaling over 40 million acres, was established in December 1978 by Presidential proclamation. Similarly, FWS and For- est Service each gained two new Alaskan national monuments .in December 1978. These two agencies are responsible for 33 million and 21 million Alaskan acres, respectively. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) now administers approxi- mately 168 million acres--however, their total is declining as land transfers to the State, Alaskan Natives, and other Federal agencies are finalized. An Alaskan BLM official told us the agency expects to retain control of from 40 to 56 million acres after all transfers now being''contemplated are completed. The four agencies operate under three different land- managing philosophies, as listed below. --NPS emphasizes preservation of significant natural and historic resources. Recreation is allowed to the extent thatit does not conflict with this,primary goal. --FWS stresses protection of wildlife habitat on the lands they administer. Nonconflicting recreation is allowed. --The Forest Service and BLM have multiple-use land management mandates. These agencies are to determine which use or combination of uses best suits-the land segment. Recreation is one of several possibilities. The questionnaire poseda set of questions dealing with Alaska's new recreation areas--the new national monuments es- tablished in December 1978 and other Federal lands being con- sidered"for reclassification as national parks, preservesf wildlife refuges, or forests. The questionnaire also focused on nine long-established recreational areas in Alaska, as shown in table 1. These areas were selected to provide coverage of 3 --all four Federal land-managin g agencies; the major.recreation areas in terms of visitor use; and --a multiplicity of recreational'uses,-including.sight- seeing, hunting, and fishing. Table I FEDERAL RECREATION AREAS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW National Park Service Mt. McKinley National Park Katmai National Monument Glacier*Bay National Monument Forest Service Tongass National Forest Chugach National Forest Fish and Wildlife Service Kenai National Moose Range Arctic.National Wildlife Range Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Bureau of Land Management The Denali Highway TheHeritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS) was also contacted during the review. Among the Service's responsibilities is the coordination of 'Irecreation-related activities of all levels of government and the private sector-to con- serve, develop and utilize outdoor recreation resources." Since HCRS is not a land-managing agency, many sections of the.review questionnaire did not apply to it. Since the Service does provide recreational information, it was covered in those parts of the questionnaire dealing with public awareness of Federal recreational opportunities. Analysis of questionnaire results, as presented in the following chapters, addresses: --Respondents' awareness of recreational information published by Federal agencies. 4 --Visitor satisfaction with the nine established Federal recreation areas. --Visitor opinions about additional recreational de- velopment of those nine areas. ;These,opinions are compared to --respondents' opinions about future recreational development of Alaska's new Federal recreational areas. 5, CHAPTER 2 VISITORS' EXPERIENCES AND OPINIONS ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Most respondents said they were satisfied with recrea- tional facilities and services provided by the Federal agen- cies. Respondent s-upport for further recreational development of roads, cabins, and lodges in established areas, such as Mt. McKinley National Park, ranged from 4 to 49 percent. .1/ In contrast, respondent support for recreational development of these items in new national monuments, aM in any new national parks, preserves, wildlife refuges, and forests which may be established, ranged from 75 to 91 percent. Respondents preferred user fees (37 percent) and Federal funding (36 percent)--a total of 73 percent--as a means of financing recreational areas. User fees have been implemented on only a limited basis in.Alaska. Review results show that a range of from 23 to 72 percent of visitors were unaware of information published by Federal land-managi.ng agencies, and that most of.those who were unaware of the information would have found it useful. VISITOR SATISFACTION AND RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT-ESTABLISHED AREAS. Since the primary objective of BLM, FWS, and the Forest Service is not recreation, their recreational budgets represent a much smaller percentage of their total budgets than is true for NPS. The following table demonstrates.the relative impor- tance each agency places,on recreation in Alaska by showing the total budget, recreational budget, and the present relationship.@ .I/The percentages u.sed in this report are "weighted"' to allow calculation of a single percentage summarizing thexesponses of the six populations used in the study. (See App. II.) .Z/The percentages should be interpreted with the realization that no space was provided for a "no opinion',' answer. Thus, 4 percent favoring development does not necessarily mean 96 percent opposed. A portion of the 96 percent may be no @opinion. 6 Table 2 Fiscal Year 1979 Percent of Total Recreational recreational Agency_ budget budget (not e a) budget to total National Park@ Service $ 7,780,600 $4j682?200 60.17 Forest Service 83,@507,000 2,250,000 2.69 Fish and Wildlife Service 10,255,000 488,.000 4.76 Bureau of Land Management 33,996,000 366,000 1.08 A/The recreational budget does'not cover all agency activities which affect recreation. It does, -however, give a reasonably good indication of the emphasis each agency places on recreation. YTotal' funding for NPS and monument units in Alaska in fiscal year 1979. Funding for the area office in Anchorage is not .included. As expected, NPS,1s 60-percent figure dominates the table. FWS,'s primary land-management 'criterion is wildli,fe habitat.preserva- and BLM and Forest Service have multiple-use mandates. Recreational funding is less than 5 percent of the total budget for each of these agencies. Review results show that visitors to Alaska Federal recreation areas have been generally satis- fied with their recreational experiences as shown in table 3. The visitors did not support further recreational development of these lands--not even for FWS and BLM, with which they were less satisfied. Table 4 shows that most respondents thought the amount of recreational development existing in the nine established areas included in the review was about right. Their respo nses, in combination with the ma Iny narrative comments made on the sub- ject, indicate a fear of overdevelopment--much of which proba- bly@come from perceptions of overdevelopment in recreational areas in the rest of the United States. A range of from 54 to 79 percent of the respondents thought the areas ','about right as is. Consistent with this attitude are the low percentages supporting specific additional facilities in the establis.hed areas, s,hown in table 5. Agency officials generally agreed that recreational use should be dispersed. 'Adding facilities 7 to already crowded areas would place additional destructive pressure 'on vegetation and wildlife. A more qualitative recreational experience could be maintained and destructive pressures minimized by building facilities'.on new, little- used areas. Table 3 VISITOR SATISFACTION COMPARISON Percent satisfied with areals recrea- tional facilities/' Fiscal year 1979 services-lowest and ''recreational highest percent funding Agency satisfied (note a) (review areas.only) National Park Service. (3 areas) 53- 91 $3j11803,600 Forest Service (2 areas) 416 -.83 1,536,.000 Fish and Wild- life Service (3 areas) 32 -80 287,400 Bureau of Land .Management (1 area) 27 73 b/366,000 A/Represents the range of responses to questions asked about the-following items, over which it was concluded the agency has the most control: facilities/services;-sanitary facil- ities; well-kept; information; and levei'of development. .@/Agency was unable to break down recreational funding by area. Therefore, the recreational budget for the..entire State was included. Table 4 OPINIONS TOWARD RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Response: The area is about right a s is. (Is'neither 0ver nor underdeveloped) (percent) National Park Service Areas .Glacier Bay National Monument 79 Katmai National Monument 54 Mt. McKinley National Park 69 Forest Service Areas Chugach National Forest. 70 Tongass National Forest '68 Fish and Wildlife'Service Areas Kenai National Moose Range. 73 Arctic National Wildlife Range 70 Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 65 Bureau of Land Management The Denali Highway 67 9 Tabl-e-5 OPINIONS TOWARD RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF LODGES, CABINS, CAMPGROUNDS, ROADS, ETC. IN ESTABLISHED AREAS Highest pro-development response (percent) National Park Service Areas Mt. McKinley National Park 41 (campgrounds) Katmai National Monument 38.(campgrounds) Glacier Bay National Monument 30 (cabins) Forest Service Areas Tongass National Forest 37 (campgrounds) Chugach National Forest 35 (campgrounds) Fish and Wildlife.Service Kenai National Moose Range 40 (campgrounds) Arctic National Wildlife Range 30 (access roads) Kodiak,National Wildlife Refuge 49 (cabins) Bureau of Land Management Area The Denali Highway 38 (campgrounds) RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT--NEW AREAS Table 6 shows the attitudes of respondents toward devel- opment of new areas--millions of acres of undeveloped Federal lands which the President recently designated as national monuments or areas being considered for future park, preservet forest, wildlife refuge, or wilderness area status. The pos- itive attitudes expressed toward recreational development are in direct opposition to the attitudes expressed about the established areas. 10 Table 6 OPINIONS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ON NEW AREAS Permit on some or all areas Total Activi (percent) Build public cabins 91 Build commercial lodges 75 Build roads 90 As seen in table 6, most respondents favor some form of recreational development for the new conservation units. Tab le 7 further demonstrates the responses to questions pertaining to desired uses of undeveloped lands. As the. table shows, the category "Allowed on specific areas" is the most commonly selected response for most activities. This is probably because most people believe sufficient land is available to preclude the necessity for totally allowing or @absolutely banning activities. The extremes "Generally allowed" and "Banned altogether" permit little or no flexibility. FINANCING RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Respondents were asked which method of financing recre- ational development they most prefer. Table 8 summarizes the results. Table 7 Recently, the,Fede.ral Government-reserved about 100 million acres of undeveloped Alaskan.land, an area about the size of California, as National Monuments or areas for future study as parks, wildlife refuges, or national forests. on these lands should the activ- ities listed below be: Generally Allowed on Banned Activity allowed specific areas altogether ---------------- (percent) --------- 7------ Land float and ski planes 61 36. 3 Travel.by @.snowmobile 37 13. Travel by off- @the-road vehicle 27 54 1.9 -Build public -.cabins 33, 57 10 Build commer- cial lodges 21 54 25 Sport hunting 48 39 13 Hunting to pro- vide food 70 25 5 Oil and gas ex- ploration and development 35 48 17 Mining 34 51 15 Timber harvesting 27 60 13 Road building 31 59 10 12 Table 8 if you would like to see recreational development in Alaska, how should this be paid for,? Pay-with: Total (Percent) Federal funds 36 State and local funds 6 User fees (entrance 'fees, etc.), 37 Private funds (hotel chains, etc.) 10 Other 11 Total 100 Table 8 shows that the most popular method of funding recreational development.is user fees, with 37 percent of total responses, followed by Federal funding with 36 percent. A combination of user fees and Federal funding appears to be the preferred way of financing recreational development in Alaska. User fees are implemented on a limited basis in Alaska. Some agencies charge for campsite use. However, NPS does not charge for entrance to its units nor for agency- provided park transportation. At the urging of the office of Management and Budget, NPS has submitted a proposal,to the Congress which would, if applied, expand the user-fee system. in Alaska. PUBLIC AWARENESS OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ON FEDERAL LAND Federal agencies in Alaska publish a great deal of rec- reational information. Modes of distribution range from NPS's visitor information center in Anchorage, to a looseleaf book describing Alaska river trips available on request from HCRS. All of the Federal land-managing agencies surveyed have maps and brochures describing recreational opportunities in Alaska. In Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, some agencies are more easily located by tourists than others. The most acces- sible is NPS's information center in the downtown area. This center has displays, maps, brochures, movie and slide presen- tations,.and a full-time staff to aid the public. In'addition to NPS materi,als, the center also provides information from other agencies - For additional information, visitors must seek out the agency. visitors who do not know,which agency to contact or where the agency is located are at a disAdvan- tage and, therefore, are less likely to visit some recreational areas. Even when the agency is located, the potential-user must sometimes know precisely what information to ask for. 13 For example, at BLM,s State office, recreation information is not on display; therefore, the visitor must request it. To assess the availability of tourist information pub- lished by Federal agencies in Alaska, specific information on recreational areas was included in the questionnaire. Respon- dents were then asked if they were aware of the information. If they were unaware of it, they were asked if it would@have been useful to them on the trips. Responses to these ques- tions are summarized in table 9. Table 9 .The percent of respondents who were unaware of the informa- tion and, of those, the percent who would have found such information useful. Information Unaware Useful - - - (percent) - - - Did you know that: Certain campgrounds in Mt. McKinley National Park require advance reser- vations? 23 66 The Heritage Conservation and Recrea- tion Service has descriptions of Alaskan river trips which are avail- able to you? 72 74 The Bureau of Land Management has brochures describing such things as the Denali, Steese, and Elliot High- ways, as well as brochures describ- ing -canoe trips and campgrounds? 50 79 The Fish and Wildlife Service has bro- chures describing canoe routes on the Kenai National Moose Range? 48 52 ,The National Forest Service has wilder- ness cabins which you can reserve? 74 Table 9 shows that awareness differed significantly by item. For example, only about 23 percent of the respondents were unaware that campground reservations were needed at Mt. McKinley National Park. At the other extreme, about 72 per- cent were unaware of HCRSls information on river trips. Most of the uninformed respondents indicated that such information 14 would have been useful. Table 9 shows that the percentage of the respondents who indicated this information would have been useful to them ranged from 52 to 79 percent for FWS and BLM brochures, respectively. HCRS is responsible for the coordination of recreation- related activities at all levels of government and the private sector to conserve, develop, and utilize outdoor recreational resources. HCRS officials told us that, although now prohibited by staff and fund limits, it would be beneficial for HCRS to assume responsibility for distributing visitor information in Alaska. The resulting system would be more balanced than if one of the land-managing.agencies had responsibility. The fact that the agency is specifically charged with the coordi- nation of recreation on State, local, and private sector lands is particularly important since the State has ownership rights to over 103 million acres and Alaskan Natives have 45 million acres, much of which has recreational potential. CONCLUSIONS Dispersing use With the expected growth of tourism, additional pressure will be placed on already crowded recreational areas. The managing agencies will be faced with three alternatives if, they are to maintain a high-quality recreational experiences First, the agencies clould develop existing areas to meet the increasing demand. Review results show that this is not what Alaskans or non-Alaskans want. Second, the agencies could limit use--an unpopular alternative,. The third alternative would be to encourage more use of other less used recreational areas. The preferences expressed in this review show that the last alternative is the most satisfactory. Visitors believe agencies should minimize recreational facility additions in already crowded areas, concentrating instead on more lightly used areas. Agency offic-ials agree that the dispersion of use is desirable. Information distribution @ A more efficient information distribution system could also be used to attract visitors to uncrowded areas and - relieve some of the pressure on heavily used areas. Review results show that the public would find such information use- ful and might also be attracted to lesser-known areas. 15 Review results show that most of the respondents who were "unaware" of specifi,c information about recreational areas would have found such information useful., Tt is reasonable to assume that some of these people would have made use of. the information and visited the area's involved. Interagency Federal visitor information centers in co In- venient locations would help relieve the growing visitation pressures on some areas, since less visited areas could be publicized. Such centers could be located in major cities and at access points so that tourists and residents could make use of the information available. The State Division of Parks and Alaskan Natives could be included as a participant, since their Alaskan lands total about 103 million acres. Since Interior's Heritage Conservation and.Recreation Service is responsible for coordinating recreation for Federal, State, and priva te lands,,this agency could coordin.ate the develop- ment of visitor center,s in Alaska and the publication of information about Alaskan,recreational.opportunities. User fees The majority of those responding favored either a user- -charge system (37 percent) or Federal funding (36.percent) t6 pay for future recreational development. The-user-charge method, however, is little used in Alaska. An expanded user-fee system in existing recreation units could help to finance facilities to meet the future recreational needs of the public. The user-fee system would shift some of the recreational costs from the general taxpayer to the user. User fees, however, may not be advisable for all recreation units, since the increased administrative costs may exceed the additional revenues obtained. @Agency comments Officials of the Forest Service, Department of Agricul- ture, and the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service, De- partment of the Interior, were,given an opportunity to comment on this report. They generally agreed with the re- port findings, and their views are included in the report where appropriate. 16 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I SUMMARYOF RESPONSES,BY AGENCY AND RECREATION AREA NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NPS assigns top priority to protecting the ecological health and historic integrity of the lands it administers. Park uses are limited to 'those activities which protect the natural and historic values each park was established to pre- serve. The level, frequency, and duration of permitted uses are limited where necessary to protect park resources -from alteration or loss. The three Alaskan NPS units chosen for this study were Mt.,McKinley National Park, Katmai National Monument, and Glacier Bay National Monument. These three NPS units have scenery, camping,. wildlife viewing, and fishing among their_ primary attractions. Until December 1, 1978, the NPS system in Alaska was composed of five units totaling about 7.5 million acres. On. December 1, 1978, 13 national monuments totaling over 40 mil- lion acres were added in Alaska by Presidential proclamation;. After these additions, Alaskan NPS lands totaled about 70 percent of the entire National Park System. In fiscal year 1979, NPS had 102 full-time staff members in-Alaska. Fifty- 'five of these.were in the area office with the remainder in the units, as follows: Mt. McKinley National Park 22 Glacier Bay National Monument 11 Sitka National Historical Park Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park 5 Katmai National Monument 3 Total 47 Total authorized funds for NPS in Alaska were divided as follows: Area office $3,098,400 McKinley 2,765,400 Glacier Bay 732,600 Klondike 547,,500 Sitka 331,100 Katmai 305,600 Total $7,780,600 17 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I ff monument designations by the President do not change substantially in the Congress, NPS investment in Alaska will increase significantly. NPS's Pacific Northwest region esti- mated a cost of $11,767,700 to staff the new areas in fiscal year 1980. MT. McKINLEY NATIONAL-PARK Mt. McKinley National Park was established in 1917. It was the most heavily used NPS unit in 1978, with 222,993 vis- itors. The park is composed of 1,939,493 acres and is partic- ularly well known for its wildlife and scenery. On December 1, 1978, a 3,900,000-acre national monument adjacent to the park was established by Presidential proclamation. Mt. McKinley National Park has a concessionaire-operated lodge and restaurant, a grocery store, and seven campsites. Private automobile access is limited to the first 15 miles on the 87-mile park road. NPS provides free bus transportation along the entire road. Of the 805 Mt. McKinley Park visitors who responded to the'questionnaire, 43 and 57 percent were Alaskans and non- Alaskans, respectively. 'Most of the respondents were male with ann'ual incomes over $20,000. They visited Mt. McKinley Park for sightseeing, hiking, and camping. Their attitudes toward some of the existing conditions at the park are expressed in table 10. (See p. 23.) Table 10 shows that the overall impression the visitor has of Mt. McKinley National Park is quite favorable. Except for.the answer "used by just enough people," a majority of respondents gave the most favorable response possible for each category. Even though visitors were satisfied with their visit to the park, there were complaints. For example, 29 percent found the concessionaire-operated shuttle bus system inade- quate and several of their narrative comments addressed this issue. Examples of these and other complaints include: --"In many ways, the booklets describing the bus service at McKinley are misleading. They say that buses run regularly (true--but they don't emphasize that they run an hour apart, and that many times they're full and you can't get on for what may be several hours.). Then, they say you can get off a bus anywhere you want and hike--true, but they don't tell you when the buses come by full, you're just out of luck for at least an hour. When we were in McKinley, we watched a driver turn away about 20 people who were 18 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I sitting along-the road,.unprotected, in a drenching rain, because all the buses returning * * * were full, and the buses going (the other direction) were also full so they would have to wait at least three hours before getting a bus back to the lodge * * * While we had no objection to the use of buses instead of cars * * * we feel that if they don't want us to use cars they should provide us with better service." --"The lodge accommodations are sorely inadequate and the food was very substandard. Many more shuttle buses needed to meet demand. You are really taking a chance on a return trip if you get off to hike." it is frustrating to visit the park and stand in line to wait for buses and be turned away from campgrounds." *,the sleeping accommodations in the railroad cars were deplorable. The compartments were dirty and noisy. (The) one bathroom at the end of the car was old, dilapidated, filthy, and cold." --"The accommodations at McKinley were described improp- erly by the travel agent very expensive dis- appointment (particularly) for those who landed in the Pullman cars." --"The National Park facilities should be modified to make easier access for handicapped people. For exam- ple, Mt. McKinley lodge entrance should be ramped, and the bus unloading area regraded to permit the bus floor and lodge front porch to'be level. When NPS buses are replaced the buses should have wider, higher entrances and lower floors Railroad cars should be returned to the railroad." opinions toward future recreational development of Mt. McKinley National Park are summarized in table 11. (See - p. 24.) Since most visitors liked their trip, it might be expected that they would be conservative toward additional development of the park. Such is indeed the case. The high- est pro-development response was 41 percent for additional campsites. Overall, a range of from 25 to 41 percent of the respondents favored the recreational development items asked about in the questionnaire. Some of the written comments added to the questionnaire articulate this preference for min- imal recreational development in Alaska: 19 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I --"We don,t need more showers, or hot dog stands, letc. @fiis is the last great wilderness not a-Calif Iorni,,a Yosemite." --"If necessarythe parks such as Mt. McKinley should irequire.) 's 's @, areservation to enter'--to be made-in advance. It is.so refreshing to be at McKinley@as opposed to Yellowstone and Glacier.. They are m Iutilated because of overpopulation. It would be a national dis- grace if it happened at McKinley." Shuttle bus system The shuttle bus system was initiated at Mt. McKinley Park as a means of protecting the park environment from heavy traf- fic. Park visitors can use the bus system for sightsee'ing or travel to and from campgrounds or hiking areas. Privat'e auto- mobile traffic is limited to persons with prearranged camp- ground space. Generally, this concept has been populai: with park visitors. NPS paid the concessionaire over $1 million for operating the bus system in fiscal year'1979.. In the case of Mt@'. McKin- ley Park, this amount represents 37 percent of the fiscal year 1979 budget. NPS officials are presently considering initiating charges for the shuttle buses so that users could share more dire.ctly in this expense. Our questionnaire addressed this issue by asking respondents to indicate their preference in funding recreational development. Responses indicate the most popular method selected was ',"User fees',' followed by "Federal funds." Therefore, it would seem to be both acceptable and reason@ble to charge shuttle bus user fees, where practical, to help finance recreational development. Mt. McKinley Park superintendent's views The park superintendent stated that the demands of tour- ists and other recreation users were being met adequately. However, he added "A variety of services could be upgraded to a bet- @er standardl i.e., comfort stations, road ma'inte-, nance, campgrounds, public transporation, et al. This increase in standards has been addressed in full detail through our budgeting process. All the*increases require a greater amount of funding and additional positions.',' 20 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Pl,ans for the improvement or addition,'o.f facilities in Mt. McKinley National Park are not extensive. According-to the park superintendent, some modifications to the hotel are planned in the next few years, and campground, sanitation, and other improvements will be made as funds are available. KATMAI NATIONAL MONUMENT Katmai National Monument was established in 1918. The monument is composed of 2,800,000 acres and is known for its Valley of the Ten-Thousand Smokes--which is remnant of a huge volcanic eruption in 1912. On December 1, 1978, a 1,400,000- acre addition to the monument was established by Presidential proclamation'. Katmai National Monument, unlike Mt. McKinley Park, is not,accessible by road. Primary access is by air. 'The monu- ment is 290 air miles southwest of Anchorage. It was the : least visited of the three NPS units included in this review, ,with an estimated 11,348 visitors in 1979. Katmai National Monument.concessionaire operations included a lodge, cabin complex, tour bus, and tour boat. NPS operates a 10-space campground in the monument. Of the 225 respondents who had visited Katmai National Monument, 36 and 64 percent were Alaskans and non-Alaskans, respectively. They visited the monument for sightseeing, fishing, and hiking. Their attitudes about the conditions .,in the monument are expressed in table 10. (See p. 23.) Responses indicate that visitors were not as favorably impressed with Katmai Monument as with other NPS areas. Legs than a majority of re 'spondents indicated satisfaction with.the use by enough people, visitor facility/services, access to area, and information availability. However., most respondents thought the area was well-kept and were satisfied with the trails and sanitaryfacilities. A number of the written responses pertained to complaints about the undeveloped nature of the monument. However, most respondents opposed furt -her. recreational development items.. (See table 11, p-. 24.) Katmai National Monument superintendent's views The monument superintendent stated that present facili- ties are inadequate because visitors are crowded into one primary site. Further expansion of that site would adversely affect wildlife and increase problems such as vegetation trampling and noise pollution. 21 .APPENDIX I APPENDIX.I The solution, advised the park superintendent, would be to place facilities in different areas of the monument. While plans have been developed to accomplish this, lack of funding ,prevents, relocation f6r at least the next few years. GLACIER BAY NATIONAL MONUMENT Glacier Bay National Monument was.established in 1925. The monument is composed of 2.8 million acres and is known for its spectacular tidewater glacier scenery. On December 1, 1978, a 550,000-acre addition to the monument was established by Presidential proclamation. Glacie 'r Bay National Monument is located in southeast Alaska and is accessible by boat or air, but not by car. Its developed facilities are limited to a concessionaire- operated lodge and one NPS 14-space campground. The conces- sionaire operates a tour boat from the lodge to the glaciers. Of the 318 respondents who had visited Glacier Bay, 28 and 72 percent were Alaskans and non-Alaskans, respectively. Their main reasons for visiting were sightseeing and hiking. Their attitudes about the conditions and plans for future development at Glacier Bay National Monument are expressed in tables 10 and 11. (See pp. 23 and 24.) As with Mt. McKinley National park, visitors'.responses indicate a general satisfaction with the visit and a clear preference that recreational facilities remain.the same. The opposition to recreational development was expressed by one respondent as follows: --"Glacier Bay National Monument is best left as is. No construction should take place on shore. Float plane access should Icontinue to be allowed. No open.fires are needed. Aerial patrols by park rangers might be good * * * I have lived in Alaska for 22- years and intend to stay here. When I am no longer able to reach the wilderness under my own power I will still derive great satisfaction from the fact that my chil- dren can. Minimize construction." Other comments about Glacier Bay include: --"The Glacier Bay Lodge and airport should be modified to ease access for the physically handicapped. The trail from Glacier Bay Lodge to the boat,dock should be regraded and perhaps paved because of the large num- ber of users." 22 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I --"Glacier (Bay) National (Monument) is far too expen- sive for the average visitor. I do not believe the lodge and restaurant should be run on a concession basis * * * visitors to (the lodge) are economic pris- oners of the greedy concessionaire. There should be a small store for campers to purchase supplies." Glacier Bay National Monument superintendent's views The monument superintendent stated that concentration of use in a few areas is a problem in Glacier Bay National Monu- ment.. There are also problems relating to road maintenance, powergeneration, accommodations, and resources protection. There are plans for improving access to back-country areas, but NPS officials told us the likelihood of adding facilities in Glacier Bay National Monument is not practic- able at this time. Table 10 VISITOR SATISFACTION WITH NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REVIEW AREAS Mt.,McKinley Katmai Glacier Bay Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied -------------- (percent) ------------- Response: -is used by just enough people 41 42, 58 -is well-kept 92 99 83 -has good visitor facility/services 54 44- 55 -has just enough hiking trails 66 58 59 -has adequate sani- tary facilities 78 .72 80 -has good access to activity areas 53 36 52 -has good informa-. tion available 74 46 60 23 APPENDIX-I APPENDIX I Table 11 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AREAS Further development Mt. McKinley Katmai Glacier Bay is favored: --------------- (percent) --------------- -lodges/hotels/ motels 33 29 25 -cabins 30 7 30 -campgrounds 41 40 25 -campground facilities 33 23 20 -access roads 25 4 13 24 APPENDIX I APPENDIX'.I FOREST SERVICE The Forest Service is required by,Jaw to administer its lands under multiple-use management principles. Legislation defines multiple-use as the management:.of the various renew- able surface resources so that they are"'utilized in the com- binations which will best meet the needs of the American people. One of these uses is recreation. The Forest Service administers approximately 21 million Alaskan acres or -approximately 11 percent of the total 188 million acres it manages nationwide. The 21 million acres make up the Nation,@s two largest national forests, the 16 million-acre Tongass and the 5 millibn-acre Chugach. On 'December 1, 1978, the Forest Service was given management responsibility for two national monuments in Alaska, totaling 3.4 million acres. In fiscal year 1979, Forest Service staff included,630- permanent full-time positions in Alaska. Total fiscal year 1979 authorized funding for the National Forest Service in Alaska was-as follows: Total funding Recreational funding Regional office $13,979,745 $ 714,000 Tongass 64,868,527 992,000 Chugach 4,658,728 '544,000 Total $83,507,000 $2,250,000 The Tongass and Chugach National Forests were included in our review. TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST The Tongass National Forest was created by Presidential proclamation in 1907. Its 16 million acres support the bulk of Alaska,'s commercial timber harvest, as well as considerable recreational use. The forest contains 145 public-use cabins, which are available on a reservation basis. Most of the cabins are accessible by airplane or boat only. Additional recreational facilities include 10 campgrounds, 26 picnic grounds, 2 visitor centers, and 377 miles of hiking trails. Recreational activities include hunting, fishing, backpacking, photography, and boating.. There were 422 respondents to the questionnaire who had visited the Tongass. Of these, 39 and 61 percent were Alaskans and non-Alaskans, respectively. The respondents visited for sightseeing, hiking, camping, fishing, and hunting. Tables 12 25 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I .and 13 summarize Tongass visitors' view toward recreational opportunities and future recreational development. (See pp. 27 and 28.) Table 12 shows that most visitors were favorably impressed with the Tongass Forest. With the exception of facilities and services, which reaped.47 percent approval, the majority was satisf,ied with the items presented in the questionnaire. Table 13 shows that future recreational development is again favored by a relatively small percentage of visitors. The highest pro-development response was 37 percent for campgrounds. Tongass National Forest supervisor's views Providing recreation in Tongass National Forest is a prob- lem. The problems include difficult access, timber harvest conflicts, and safety of visitors in a harsh climate. Also, reduced funding in maintenance and operation of developed sites has resulted in both reduced service and closure of some facilities. Ongoing Tongass Forest plans specify a variety of recreation-related improvements, including new trails and cabins, dispersed tent camps, and better visitor information services. The Forest Service area supervisor told us that the recreational budget is often the first to absorb budget cuts, so these improvements and additions are not guaranteed. CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST The Chugach National Forest was formally designated in 1907. Hiking, boating, fishing, and hunting are its main recreational activities. The Forest Service maintains 16 campgrounds, 15 picnic areas, and 37 remote recreation cabins. It staffs a visitors' recreation center at Portage Glacier, an area easily accessible from Anchorage. There were 712 respondents to the questionna Iire who had visited the Chugach. Of these, 52 and 48 percent were Alaskans and non-Alaskans, respectively. Most respondents,visited for sightseeing, camping,.fishing, and hunting. The Chugach results in tables 12 and 13 closely parallel ,those of the Tongass; both show a general hesitancy toward recreational development. 26 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Chugach National Forest supervisor's views The Chugach National Forest recreation supervisor identi- fied problems that included the low priority of funding for recreation, overcrowding of some areas, and the inability to keep facilities open for as long as the recreational demands exist. The Chugach National Forest plans to add and improve a variety of facilities, including new cabins, trails, and reha- bilitated campgrounds. These plans depend upon obtaining additional funding and staffing--by no means a certainty, given the low priority of recreational funding. Table 12 VISITOR SATISFACTION WITH NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE REVIEW AREAS Tongass National Chugach National Forest Forest Satisfied Satisfied Response: ------------ (percent) ------------- -is used by just enough people 50 45 -is well-kept 88 81 -has good visitor facility/services 47 46 -has just enough hiking trails 57 63 -has adequate sanitary facilities 75 67 -has good access to activity areas 53 61 -has good information available 57 52 27 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Table 13 FUTURE RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL FOREST SERVICE AREAS IN ALASKA Further development Tongass Chugach is favored: -----(percent)----- -lodges/hotels/motels 19 17 -cabins 36 29 -campgrounds 37 35 -campground facilities 23 28 -access roads 22 23 28 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FWS,'s refuge,management policy is to allow recreation to the extent that. it'doesnot interfere with the main purpose of the refuge. In Alaska, primary purposes include protection of moose, bear,'and-migratory bird habi-tat. FWS is responsible for 20'Alaskan wildlife refuges, ranges, and monuments, totaling 33 million acres. Alaskan lands constitute 73 percent of the agency,s 45 million-ac.re total nationwide. On December 1, 1978, FWS land-managing responsibilities significantly increased when two new national monuments, total- ing 12 million acres, were established with the Fish and Wild- life as administering agency. The Alaskan area office of the agency estimates additional funding of $1.9 million annually will be needed by 1980 for these new areas. In fiscal y@ar 1979(, FWS wildlife refuge and range staff in Alaska included 68 full-time s,taff members. Total fiscal year 1979 authorized funding for Alaskan refuges and ranges was $2,893,400. Of this amount, $488,400 was for recreation. It was divided as follows; Recreation Funding Kenai.National Moose Range $192,400 Arctic National Wildlife Range 55,000 Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 40,000 Other refuges 59,000 Area office 142,400 Total $488,800 For purposes of this review, three FWS refuges were selected: The Kenai National Moose Range, the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, and the Arctic National Wildlife Range. KENAI NATIONAL MOOSE RANGE The Kenai National Moose Range was established in 1941 to protect moose, Dall sheep, and other wild game herds. The range is composed of 1,730,000 acres on@the Kenai Peninsula. The area is easily accessible from Anchorage, Alaska,'s main population center, and consequently is popular for many types of outdoor recreation, such as huntingr fishing, boating, and hiking. The range is particularly well known as home of the giant Kenai moose, which weighs up to 1,400 pounds. It is also famous for king, red, and silver salmon fishing in the Kenai and Russian Rivers. An estimated 141,000 visitors used 29 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I the range in 1978, making it by far the,most heavily vis ited Fish and Wildlife area-in the review. The range has over 100. miles of marked hiking trails and 'two established canoe routes. It has 14 developed campsites with a combined total of 138 spaces. It had 13 full-time staff members in fiscal year 1979, the most of any Fish and Wildlife refuge or range in Alaska. Funding totaled $595,400 in 1979, of which $192,400 was earmarked for recreation. Of the 458 respondents who had visited the range, 65 and 35 percent were Alaskans and non-Alaskans, respectively. Most respondents visited for sightseeing, fishing,.hunting, and camping. The attitudes of,respondents toward conditions on the Kenai National Moose Range are expressed in table 14. (See p. 33.) Visitors to the range leave with 'a less favorable impres- sion than did visitors to some of the other-units in our sam- ple. Less than a majority thought the visitor facilities and services were "good." It should be 'pointed out, however, that good road access, via one of the State's major highways, and excellent salmon spawning runs contribute heavily to the range's use. This heavy use places corresponding demands on the facilities and the agency's ability to meet these demands. opinions toward future recreational development of the range are summarized in table 15. (See p. 34.) Even though respondents are relatively unsatisfied with some aspects of the range, most people did not favor additional recreational development. Kenai Moose Range manager's views User opinion is bolstered by the response from the Kenai Moose Range manager who perceived'the range as overcrowded, in poor repair, and with inadequate sanitary facilities. The manager told us that the basic problem is facility maintenance during the summer months when tourist demand far excee 'ds staff- ing and financial capabilities. Specific problems include: --overcrowding on holiday weekends and during salmon runs. --Increasing demands by hunters and fishermen on a lim- ited wildlife resource. --Protecting the ground cover on high-use trails. 30 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I The Kenai National Moose Range does not plan to increase the size of its facilities. However, there are plans to upgrade campground facilities and,,increase trail maintenance. ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE RANGE This 8,900,000-acre range was established in 1960 in the northeastern corner of Alaska. Its purpose is to preserve an undisturbed portion of the arctic environment-large enough to be biologically self-sufficient. Among its'wildlife are caribou, Dall sheep, moose, wolverine, and three kinds of bear--grizzly, black, and polar. FWS's objective is to main- tain natural conditions. No developed recreational facilities are in the range. Access other 'than aircraft is difficult. The Arctic National Wildlife Range had nine full-time staff members in fiscal year 1979, and funding totaled I I $352,000. Of this amount, $55,000 'Was for recreation. The range was the least visited of FWS units reviewed, with an estimated 992 visitors in 1978. .Of the 74 respondents who had visited the Arctic National Wildlife Range, 57 and 43 percent were Alaskans and non- Alaskansi respectively. Most respondents visited for sight- seeing, fishing, and hunting. Tables 14 and 15 summarize responses to study questions on recreational use and development. Less than a majority of respondents thought visitor facil- ities/services or access was good. This might indicate a higher degree of dissatisfaction with the Arctic National Wild- life Range than with some of the other units. An apparent inconsistency exists, however, since the highest response fa- voring development is 30 percent. The explanation may lie in the range manager's interpretation of the question. He stated that since this is a wilderness area, "poor" access and facil- ities are appropriate. Arctic National Wildlife Range manager's views The'range manager told us that minor crowding occurs dur- ing the hunting season, and that the number of sheep and moose killed in some areas is excessive. Current funding is insuf- ficient to conduct the patrols necessary to detect violations of regulations and adequately'protect refuge visitors. There are no plans to add facilities--such facilities would be con- trary to the range's objectives. 31 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I KODIAK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE The Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1941 to preserve the natural habitat of the famed Kodiak bear and other wildlife. The refuge, on Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska, 'has 1,815,0,00 acres. Refuge headquarters in the town of Kodiak is accessible by commercial aircraft. There are no roads, lodges, or devel- oped campgrounds on the refuge. FWS refuge facilities consist of eight primitive public-use cabins. The'agency plans to build a visitor center at refuge headquarters in 1979-80. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge had eight full-time staff members in fiscal year 1979, Authorized funding totaled $285,000, ranking Kodiak last'among FWS units studied. An estimated 1,200 visitors came to Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge in 1978. Of the 98 respondents who had visited the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, 64 and 36 percent were Alaskans and non- Alaskans, respectively. Most respondents visited for sightsee- ing, fishing, and hunting. Tables.14 and 15 summarize the re- sponses to study questions.on recreational use and development. Less than a majority of respondents thought visitor facil- ities, access, and available information were good. Overall, 67 percent of the.visitors thought that the facilities and .access were fair,or poor; and 75 percent thought the informa- tion available was fair or poor. These opinions are bolstered by those of the refuge manager who thought information and visitor facilities poor and access fair. Although still less than a majority, a higher-percentage of respondents favor cabin and campground.development than in most other review units: 49 and 37 percent, respectively. The prevalent opposition to recreational development remains, however, since none of the pro-development items received majority approval. Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge manager's views The refuge manager advised that: "Extremely low budgets over the past 20,years have prevented the Station from ever reaching its man- dated obligation of positive resource and habitat protection, and maintenance of supportive facili- ties. There have never been funds available to provide any quality recreational facilities or 32 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I carry on mandated environmental conservation education programs." The refuge manager says that there are plans to build a visitor's center in municipal Kodiak or to rehabilitate or' replace public-use cabins on refuge lands. Table 14 VISITOR SATISFACTION WITH FISH AND-WILDLIFE SERVICE REVIEW AREAS @Kenai Arctic Kodiak National National National@ Moose Wildlife Wildlife Range Range Refuge Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Response: ------------- (percent) ------------- -is used by just .enough-people 52 27 45 -is well-kept 76 93 90 --has good,visitor facility/services. 33 .20 -33 -has just enough hiking.trails 65 41 48 -has adequate sani- tary facilities 61 53 46 -has good access to activity areas 55 30 33 --has 'good informa- tion available 49 20 25 33 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Table 15 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AREAS IN ALASKA Kenai Arctic Kodiak National National National Moose Wildlife Wildlife Further development Range Range Refuge is-favored: ------------ (percent) -------------- -lodges/hotels/motels 14 22 23 -cabins 29 26 49 -campgrounds 40 18 37 -campground faciliites 14 @24 -access roads 24 30 29 34 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BLM is charged with managing its land on a multiple-use basis. One of the major uses.is recreation, as specified in the Federal Land Policy.and Management Act of 1976. The amount of land which the agency will ultimately be responsible for administering in Alaska is currently being decided by the Congress. BLM estimates that approximately 65 million acres will be the final amount. In Alaska, 5LM has 11 full-time recreational management staff members. These include five outdoor recreational plan- ners, three archeologists, and three landscape architects. Funding for recreation in fiscal year 1979 was $366,000,.which has been reduced to $234,000 for fiscal year 1980. DENALI HIGHWAY AREA The Denali Highway recreation area is unique in that it is not a formal recreation area, but,rather a road with adja- cent land areas used by recreationalists. It is accessible to most of Alaska's population and was selected for review because of its popularity and because BLM expects the area to remain under its'management. Of the 440 respondents who had traveled to Denali, 56 and 44 percent were Alaskans and non-Alaskans, respectively. Respondents visited for sightseeing, fishing, hunting, and camping. .BLM estimated that'20,.0100 visitors traveled the.Denali Highway for recreational purposes during the summer of 1978. The area supervisor was dissatisfied with the agency's rec- reational management of the area, attributing deficiencies to inadequate funding and lack of agency management direction. A majority of respondents expressed satisfaction only in regard to the area being well kept. Table 16 which summa- rizes both agency and public response, shows that the visitors agree with the agency's assessment that facilities/services, hiking trails, sanitary facilities, and information are inadequate. Table 17 shows that despite this relative dissatisfac- tion, as has been,prevalent throughout the review, respondents opposed additional recreational development. 35 APPENDIX I APPENDIk'I Table 16 VI8ITOR SATi@FACTION WITH B&R'EAU OF'LA'ND MANA6tMENT'S- DENALI HIGHWAY AREA All BIM visitors supervisor The Denali Highway (percent) -is used by just Underused/ enough people 47 littered, -is well-kept 73 Poor repair -has good.visitor facility/services 27 Poor -has.just enough hiking trails 46 Too few -has adequate sanitary facilities 47 Inadequate -has good access to activity areas 44 -has good information available 31 Poor 36 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Table 17 FUTURE RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF LAND BORDERING THE DENALI HIGHWAY All. BLM Further,development visitors supervisor is favored: (percent) -lodges/hotels/motels 20 No response -cabins 24 Yes -campgroun'da. 42 Upgrade existing -campground facilities 27 upgrade existing -access roads 26 No response 37 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II REVIEW DESIGN AND STRUCTURE SAMPLE SELECTION To sample public opinion on Alaskan recreation land we developed a questionnaire. (See App III.) This question- naire was designed to provide information about the --users of Alaskals'recreation areas, --userst satisfaction with the areas and facilities, and --userst opinion on future recreational development. Since no comprehensive list of all visitors to Alaskan recreation areas exists, our questionnaire'was mailed to ran- domly selected persons from populations which could be read- ily used. These populations included persons who registered --at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce visitor center; --on the Alaska Marine Highway System; --at concessionaire facilities in Mt. McKinley National Park or Katmai National Monument; --for cabins or persons listed in the Chugach National Forest; or --in the telephone directories of Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Valdez, and Seward, Alaska. These populations provided a usable universe of about 100,000 persons. Response rates varied among the separate sources from a low of 78 percent to a high of 88 percent. The overall response rate, after adjustments, was 84 percent of 1,291 net potential respondents. (Table 18 on p. 40 provides more detail.) Because we used several different sources to approximate the universe of recreational users, our sample sizes varied. Some of the sources contained names, addresses, or both, that eliminated them from our sample. For example, we eliminated names or addresses that were unreadable or from a foreign country. In one case, only non-Alaskans were included (Alaska Marine Highway System). In the case of telephone directories, business organizations and government listings were eliminated. 38 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II This elimination process resulted in our "Usable PQpula- tion" as shown in table 18. WEIGHTING OF PERCENTAGES Each of the six samples was selected randomly. The six samples were 'then weighted to control for differing degrees of randomness and for the differing universe sizes being sam pled. The weighting allowed calculation of a single percent- age summarizing responses from all six populations. The fol- lowing example illustrates the method used. (See table 19, p. 41.) 39 Table 18 Usable Ques- Less bad popu- tion- addresses Responses -lation naires deceased & Net potential Percent of Category size mailed duplication respondents Usable Unusable Total, potential- Anchorage Cham- ber of Commerce visitor logs 5,590 329 19 310 244 23 267 83 Alaska Marine Highway System reservations 3,640 153 12 141 105 5 110 78 Registrants at Mt. McKinley N.P. facilities 9,000 202 15 187 161 0 161 Registrants at 0 Katmai N.M. facilities 298 149 3 146 128 .1 129 88 Alaskan telephone directories 78,892 500 156 344 274 5 @279 al Anchorage 54,900 347 Fairbanks 10,568 67 Juneau 6,944 44 Ketchikan 3,472 22 Kod'iak 1,516 10 Valdez 728 5 Seward 768 5 Registrants for U.S. Forest Serv- ice cabins in Chugach National Forest 1,558 189 26 163 134 1 135 83 Total 98L982 231 lf291 35 lfO81 83 Table 19 QUESTION: Is the area (Glacier Bay National Monument) RESPONSES: (1) To6 developed? (2) About right as is? (3) Not developed enough? Total number giving responses Number giving specific response Usable (1), (2), or (3) (2) Population response Total Weighted total responses Total (2) Weighted (2) responses Population Name size sample responses (Col 4 + Col 3 x Col 2) Responses (Col.6 + Col 4 x Col 5,) Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7 Visitor center .Anchorage 5,590 244 74 1,695 64 1,466 Regist*rants at Katmai National - Monument 298 128 84, 196. 73 170 Registrants at -US Forest Serv- ice cabins 1,558 134 25 291 20 233 Alaska Marine Highway System reservations 3,640 105 31 1,075 28 971 Alaskan tele- phone direc- tories (7 cities) 78,896 274 45 12,957 _,34 9,790 Registrants at Mt. McKinley National Park 9,000 161 40 2,236 1,901 Total 18,450 14,531 Weighted response "About right as is" FOR ALL POPULATIONS (Column 7 Total + Column 5 Total) 79% a/ a/As shown in table 4. APPENDIX II APPENDIX II CLASSIFICATIONS'OF GROUPS' To simplify the writing and understanding of this report, we classified various groups sampled in our review into seven categories. The following i's a summary of these categories and the segment of each population sampled that was included in each. SUMMARY OF CATEGORIES Category Populations Included Visitors ta Alaska -Registrants at the Anchorage or non-Alaskans: Chamber of Commerce Visitor Center (non-Alaskan addresses). -Reservation holders on the .Alaska Marine Highway System (,non-Alaskan addresses). -Registrants at concessionaire facilities at Mt.-McKinley National Park or Katmai National Monument (non-Alaskan addresses). -Registrants for Chugach National Forest cabins (non-Alaskan addresses). Alaskans -Persons listed in the telephone directories of: Anchorage Fairbanks Juneau Ketchikan Kodiak Valdez and Seward -Registrants at the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce sign-in log (Alaskan addresses). , -Registrants for Chugach Na- tional Forest cabins-(Alaskan addresses). Visitors to Mt. McKinley .-All persons listed in conces- National Park sionaire's registration books 42 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II -All persons who indicated they visited Mt,'McKinley National Park (on questionnaire). Visitors to Katmai -All persons,.listed in conces- National Monument sionaire's registration books at Katmai National Monument.- [email protected] persons who indicated they visited Katmai National Monu- -ment (on questionnaire).. Visitors to Chugach -All persons who made reserva-, National Forest r tions with the*National For- est Service for cabins in the Chugach National Forest. -All persons who indicated they visited Chugach National For- est (on questionnaire). Visitors to Denali -All,persons who indicated they Highway Area visited the Denali Highway Area (on questionnaire). Visitors to "Other Areas" -All persons who indicated they visited the area (i.e., park,, refuge, monument, etc. on questionnaire). In some situations, other groupings are used; however, when this is done the modified category is so described. 43 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Case No. State (5-6) I GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT ALASKAN FEDERAL LAND AREAS 1 . We are trying to assess how well the following services are publicized. Did you know that: If no, would this information have been useful? 1)Yes .2) No 1)Yes 2)Nu Certain campgrounds in Mt. McKinley National Park require advance reservations. 769 (7) 2.50 146 J81 91 The Heritage Conser- vation and Recreation Service (Bureau of Outdoor Recreation) has descriptions of Alaskan river trips which are available to you. 277 (9) 723 472 iic@ 202 The Bureau of Land Management has bro- chures describing such things as the Denali, Steese, and Elliot highways, as well as brochures describing canoe trips and camp- grounds in Alaska. 456 0 0 543 380 0 129 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has brochures des- cribing canoe routes on the Kenai National Moose Range. 430 (13) 565 244 (14 278 The National Forest Service has wilderness cabins in Alaska which you can reserve. 642 (15) 358 212 (it 127 NOTE: Numbers in parenthesis will be used by keypunchers. 44 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 2_ Have you ever tried to reserve a 3. Have you ever tried to reserve National Forest Service cabin in accommodations at a National Park Alaska? Service facility? (campground, lodgelhotel) 1. 2 34 Yes (17) 2. 775 No (SKIP TO QUESTION 3)1.. CAMPGROUND LODGE/HOTEL If yes, what happened? (18) 1. Yes 274 291 2. No(SKIPTO- ..484 119) 285 (20) 1. 15 0 1 got the one I wanted QUESTION 4) 2. 42 1 didn'tget my first choice If yes, what happened? (21) (22) 3. 2 3 1 didn't get a cabin 1 . I got the -one I wanted 144 172 2. 1 didn't get my first 79 71 -choice 3. 1 didn't get anything 39 27 4. Recently the Federal government reserved about 100 million acres of undeveloped Alaskan land; an area about the size of California, as National Monuments or area for future study as parks, wildlife or National forests. On these lands should the activities listed below be: Check one box per activity ALLOWED GENERALLY ON SPECIFIC BANNED DON'T Activity 1)ALLOWED? 2)AREAS 3)ALTOGETHER? 4)KNOW land float & ski planes 456 461 40 42 (23) travel by snowmobile 257 543 175 32 J24) travel by off road vehicle 170 515 267 50 (25) building public cabins 248- 580 131 43 (26) building commercial lodges 124 545 272 60 (27) sporthunting 313 430 223 34 (28) hunting to provide food 524 347 80 .49 (29) oil and gas exploration and development 223 445 268 .66 (30) mining 202 465 267 64 (31) timber harvesting 169 554 231 46 (32) road building 226 613 131 29 (33) 45 APPENbIX'III APPENDIX III 5. In general. vvh@t would you like to see done in the future with recreational lands in Alaska? Wheck appropriate boxes) 1, leave undeveloped exactly as is 127 (34) (SKIP TO QUESTION 7) 2. leave as is but provide access to 393 (35) border of area (roads, landing strip, etc.) 3. in addition to access provide 398 (36) trails through tl? e area 4. in addition provide campsites, 304 (37) roads, signs within area 5. provide recreational areas, 389 (38) lodges, cabins, campgrounds within area 6. fully develop the area, (ad- 111 (39) clitional lodges, restaurants, recrea t ion /social facilities 7. other (please specify) 67 (40) 6. (a) If you would like to see recreational development of Federal land in Alaska, how should this be paid for? (Check only one) 1 Your Federal tax dollars 238 (41) 2. Your State and local tax dollars 31 3. User fees (entrance fees, etc.). 308 4. Private funds (hotel chains, etc.) 60 5. Other (please specify) 65 6. (b) If you would like to see industrial development, (timber, mining, oil, etc.) of Federal land in Alaska, how should this be paid for? (Check only one) (42) 1, Your Federal tax dollars 19 2. Your State and local tax dollars 13 3. User fees (leases, etc.) 321 4. Private funds 266 5. Other (please specify) 33 46 APPENDIX I.III APPENDIX III 11. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC RECREATION AREAS 'The questions which follow ask about specific recreation areas. Many may not apply to you; however for those areas you have visited, please check the box(es) which best represent your experience /op in !on. If you have not visited any Alaskan recreation area, please turn to page 8.. 7. Please answer the following questions about each area you have visited. Glacier Bay Katmai Mt.McKinley Tongass National National National National Forest Monument Monument Park (SE Alaska, Mendenhall Glacier, etc.) A. Did you visit: (check one) 6 1. Yes 318 225 805 422 2. No 325 (44) 352 (61) 84 (7) 240 (24) B. Is the area (check one) 1) too developed? 6 5 49 18 2) About right as is? 253 (45) 164 (62) 584 (8) 30e (25) 3) Not developed enough? 40 47 137 C. Why did you visit the area? (Check all that apply) 1) Backpacking 18 (46) 21 (63) 130 (9) 46 (26) 2) Hiking 70 (47) 79 (64@ 287 (10) 126 (27) 3) Camping 40 (48) 40 (65) 325 0 11 108 (28) 4) Fishing/hunting 33 (49) @5 (66) 158 '(12) 88 (29) 5) Sightseeing/photography @82 (50) 174 (67) 731 (13) 379 (30) 6) Boating/canoeing 50 (51) 12 (68) 27 (14) 62 (31) 7) Stay in cabin 27 (52) 61 (69) 55 (15) 42 (32) 8) Other: 32 (531 30 (70) 86 (161 49 (33) D. Where did you stay? (check all that apply) 1) Outside the area 82 (54) 26 (71) 167 (17) 150 (34) 2) Lodge/motel 131 (55) 102 (72) 326 (18) 91 (35) 3) Cabin 13 (561 66 (73) 31 0 g) 39 (36) 4) RV campground 19 (57) 6 (74) 162 (20) 42 (37) 5) Tent campground 14 (58) 22 (75) 185 (21) 46 (38) 6) Campsite (back country 33 (59) 21 (76) 154 (22) 73 (39) or along highway) 7@ Other: 59 (60) 7 (77) 30 (21) 77 (40) 0 1 in (80) Dupl. (1-6) 47 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III@ Chugach Arctic, Kenai Kodiak Denali Other (Sitka National Nitional Moose Range National Highway and Klondike Forest Wildlife (Swanson River Wildlife Historical (Portage Glacier, Range @t Swan Lake Refuge Parks, etc.) Cordav a, Russian C@noe Routes, River, Pr. William Skilak Loop Rd.) Sound, Afognak, etc.) A. 1, 'Yes 712 74 458 98 440 280 2. No 110 (41) 424 68) 218 W 409 (24) 226 (41) 284 (58) S. t 67 2 39 4 23 17 2, 498 43 304 59 .192 3. 88 J42) 18 (59) 62 (8) 24 (25) (42) 26 (59) C. 1. 1157 W) 9 (60) 116 (9) 10 (26) 54 f43)' 23 2. 257 (40'- is 161) 154 (10) 24 (27) 99 (44) 75 461) 3. 2,84" (4-5) 20 (62) 236 0 1) 20 (28) 164 (45) 57 t62) 4. 286 (46) 24 (63) 263 (12) 44 (29) 169 (46) 31. (63) 5. 591 447) 51 J64) 332 (13), 66 (36) 341 (47) 239 (64) 6. 112,3 (48) 2 (55) 163 (14) 13 (31) 48 (49) 15 (65) 9-' (32) 11 (49) 10 (66) 7. 99 J49) 2 (66) 41 (15) 8. 74 (50) 17 4G (16) 10 (33) 55 (50) 3@3 (67) D. 1. 220 (51) 24 (as) 90 (17) 26 (34) 84 (51) 72 (68) 2. 94 (52) is t6g) 0s) 21 (35) 61 (52) 97 (69) 3. 102 (53) 2 (70) 39 fig) 14 (360) 14 (53) .S(70) 4, 139 (54) 0 (71) 101 (20) 2(37) 8,1 (54) 24 (71) 5. 131 (55) 4 (72) 119 (21) q(38) 74 (55@ 34 (72) 6. 207 (56) 2 4 (73) 185 (22) 23 139) 167 (66@ 49 (73) 7. 82 (57) 11 (74@ .24 J23) 17 (40) 29 (57)@ 37 (74) (2) in (80) (3) in iso) Dupl, 11-6) 48 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Glacier Say Katmai Mt. McKinley Tongess National National National National Monument Monument Park Forest ISE Alaska, Mendenhall Glacier, etc.) E. Would you say the area: I .is under-used? 82 70 95 104 2. is used by just enough 12 :123) 353 (39) 215 (55) people? 22 11 289 32 3. is overcrowded? 1 .is well-kept? 260 192 702 319 2. is littered/in poor repair? (8) 4 (24) 35 (40) 25 (@6) 1 .has good visitor facilities/ 183 128 448 196 services? 2. has fair visitor facilities/ 58 52 215 services? 3. has poor visitor facilities/ J25) (41) (57) services? 22 21 84 34, 1. has too few hiking trails? 68 5 2 157 95 2. has just enough hiking trails? 126 118 434 174 3. has too many hiking trails? 2 00) 2 (26) 15 (42) 3 (58) 1 .facilities/services cost too little? 6 3 24 11 2. f acil ities/serv ices are priced right? 142 116 476 214 3. facilities/services cost too much? 93 0 1) 67 (27) 192 (43) 59 (59) 1 .has adequate sanitary facilities? 201 171 570 239 2. has inadequate sanitary faciliti as? 33 (12) 15 (28) 134 (44) 58 (60) 1. has good access to activity areas? 133 102 442 177 -2. has fair access to activity areas? 71 53 180 91 3. has poor access to activity areas? 36 (13) 40 (29) 75 (45@ 34 (61) 1 1 .has good information available 185 137 577, 213 (nature, maps/signs@ 2. has fair information available? 63 47 124 85 (nature, maps/signs) 3. has poor information available? 12 (14) 14 (30) 28 (46) 26 (62) (nature, maps/signs) F. For each area listed, do you favor further development of: Check if Yes 1 .lodges/hoteis/motels? 68 (15) 41 (31) 230 (47) 59 (63) 2. cabins? 71 116) 66 (32) 193 (48) 100 (64) 3. campgrounds? 67 (17) 58 (33) 290 (49) 112 (65) 4. campground facilities? (showers, etc. 54 (18) 37 (34) 208 (50) 82 (66) 5. more organized activities? (ranger 41 (19) 24 (35) 117 (51) 43 (67) talks, films, tours, etc.) 6. accessroads? 32 (20) 32 (36) 141 (52) 58 (68) 7. publicity to attract more visitors? 34 (21) 27 137) 72 (53) 43 (69) B. other? 8 (22) 5 (38) 24 (54) 9 (70) (4) in (80) Dupl. (1-6) 49 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III Chugach Arctic Kenai Kodiak Denali Other (Sitka National National Moose Range National Highway and Klondike Forest Wildlife (Swanson River Wildlife Historical (Portage Glacier. Range & Swan Lake Refuge Parks, etc.) Cordova, Russian Canoe Routes, River, Pr. William Skilsk Loop Rd.) Sound, Afognak, etc.) E. 1. 97 37 58 37 110 48 2. 33 1(7) 26 '(23) 204 (39) 46 (55) 216 (7) 140 (23) @3. 189 2 134 5 53 31 1 -521 57 296 74 275 197 2. 83 (8) 3 (24) 86 (40) 7 (56) 81 (8) 11 (24) 1 .292 21 133 27 102 133 2. 215 9 163 25 138 61 194 (9) 26 (25) 78 (41) 28 (57) 107 (9) 12 (25) I .157 25 112 29 117 35 2. 323 28. 195 35 148 126 3. 24 (10) 1 (26) 20 (42) 2 (58) 9 (10). 6 (26) 1 -36 3 27 5 16 11 2. 398 25 239 38 208 134 173 09 16 (27) 55 (43) 24 (59) 60 0 1) 37 (27) 1 .397 28 225 43 183 152 2. 161 (12) is (28) 124 (44) 24 (60) 131 (12) 31 (28) 1 .369 19 213 27 166 126 2. 148 12 118 32 ill 57 3. 50 (13) 24 (29) 34 (45) 19 (rJ) 47 113) 13 (29) 1 .343 18 186 26 127 129 2. 181 11 129 33 118 57 3. 51 (14) 27 (30) 5-1 (46) 19 (62) 84 (14) 11' (30) 1. 90 (15) 13 (31) 46 (47) 13 (63) 76 (15) 32 (31) 2.169 08) 17 (32) 127 (48) 38 (64) 97 (16) 32 (32) 1197 (17) 14 (33) 158 (49) 35 (65) 168 117) 5 3'@ 133) 4. 150 (18) 13 (34) 105 (50) 21 (66) 94 (18) 39 (34) 5. 85 (19) 7 (35) 41 (51) 10 (67) 37 (19) 18 (36) 6. 119 (20) 15 (36) 87 (52) (68) 80 (20) 27 (36) 7. 53 (21) 8 137) 34 (531 11 (69) 35 (21) 22 (37) S. 23 (22) 3 (38) 12 (54) 4 (70) 14 (22) 6 (38) (6) i n (80) 50 APPENDIX II1 APPENDIX III 8. If you visited Mt. Mckinley, Please 11. APPROXIMATE INCOME: answer this question, otherwise skip (yours and spouse's if married and to question 9. both working) (49) Did you use the shuttle bus system? 1. under $10,000 100 2. 10,000 - 19,999 216 1. Yes (39) 542 3 . 20,000 - 29,999 228 2. No 263 4. 30,000 - 39,999 189 5. 40,000 - 49,999 99 How would you describe it? 6. 50,000 and above 145 1. More than adequate (40) 129 12. HIGHEST GRADE ATTENDED: (SKIP TO QUESTION 9) (Check one) (50) 2. Adequate (SKIP TO QUESTION 9) 288 3. Inadequate 140 1 . Elementary School 21 2. High School 264 If inadequate, why? 3. College/Technical School 727 jCheck all that apply) 13. LOCATION WHERE YOU LIVE(D) 1. Too crowded (41) 62 2. Not enough buses to meet (42) 72 1. Primarily lived Live demand, (A) until age 18 (B) now 3. Uncomfortable J43) 59 4. Doesn't allow enough (44) 72 1. On a farm/ranch 150 33 freedom to see the park 2. Rural Community/ 5. Hard to get on again, if (45) '59 small town under you get off any any point 1,000 people) 101 58 6. Other (please specify) (46) 30 3. Town (1,000 - , 5,000 139 82 4. Small City (5,000 - 50,000) 258 226 5. Medium city . (50,000 - 1 million 211 452 Ill. Please supply the following information 6. Large city (over about yourself: 1 million) 115 87 9. AGE: (47) (51) (52) 1. under 20 13 2. 20-29 179 3. 30-39 263 4. 40-49 145 5. 50- 59 191 6. 60 and over 236 10. SEX: (48) 1. Male 748 2. Female 265 APPENDIX'III APPENDIX III 14, OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION. 16.a) Did you come: a. Are you retired? (53) 1. Alone? (57) 78 2. With family only? 288 I Yes 207 How many?_ 2. No 8@1 (include yourself) (58-59) 3. With friends only? 73 b. Are you a full time student? How many? (include yourself) I Yes (54) 32 4. With family and 49 2. No, part-time .69 friends? 3. Not a student 809 How many? (include yourself) c. If you are now working is your job 5. Other (please specify) 25 considered: How many?_ (Check one.) (include yourself) 1 Prof essional/tachn ice 1? 429 2. Manager , official 135 b) Were you with a tour group? proprietor ? 3. Clerical worker 39 1. Yes 101 (60) 4. Sales worker ? 2.7 2. No 450 5. Skilled labor? 104 6. Semi-skilled labor? 27 17. To help us assess the potential 7. Unskilled? 3 attractiveness of Alaska for future (Results B. Other (please specify) 35 tourisis, please estima 'te the cost not of your last visit to a recreation tabulated) area. (including transportation) (55) A. As a member of a tour group: $ IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF ALASKA, (61-65) PLEASE,SKIP TO QUESTION 18 B. Not as a tour group member: $ (66-70) 15. How did you travel around Alaska on your visit? (Check all that IF YOU ARE NOT A RESIDENT OF apply) ALASKA, SKIP TO QUESTION 19 1. Airplane (56) 18. If you are a resident of Alaska, (Results 2. 11 Car or RV how do you get to recreation not 3. Ferry areas? (Check all that apply) tabulated) 4. Cruise ship 5. Bus 1. Airplane (71) 6. Other (please specify) 2. Car or RV (Results 3, Ferry 4. Cruise ship not 5. Bus tabulated) 6. 1 Other (please specify) 52 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 19. If you have any comments on topics covered by this questionnaire, or related topics, please use the space below. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary. If comment made: (11 in (77) (6) i n (80) (148020) 53 U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 - 620-167/317 Single copies of GAO reports are available free of charge. Requests (except by Members of Congress) for additional quantities should be accompanied by payment of $1.00 per copy. Requests for single copies (without charge) should be sent to: U.S. General Accounting Office Distribution Section, Room 1518 441 G Street, NW. Washington, DC 20548 Requests for multiple copies should be sent with checks or money orders to: U.S. General Accounting Office Distribution Section P.O. Box 1020 Washington, DC 20013 Checks or money orders should be made payable to the U.S. General Accounting Of- fice. NOTE: Stamps or Superintendent of Documents coupons will not be accepted. PLEASE DO NOT SEND CASH To expedite filling your order, use the re- port number and date in the lower right corner of the front cover. GAO reports are now available on micro- fiche. If such copies will meet your needs, be sure to specify that you want microfiche cop ies. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER UNITED STATES POSTAGE AND rims PAID GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE U. S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE U.S.MAIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548 OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD CLASS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,S300 00001 731